Carrier questions and responses 7 Aug 10.pdf

HTC711-10-R-C001 CARRIER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CRAF INTERNATIONAL

AIRLIFT SERVICES SOLICITATION

#1 - A question was asked what amendment identified the wide body passenger category split.

Answer: The passenger category split was included in the original solicitation and the 1 July cover Contracting Officer letter, para 5, which stated "The entitlement categories and the Allowable Cabin Load (ACL) ranges have been changed to agree with the aircraft standards included in the Rates and Rules (Large, Medium & Small). Refer to Section B page ranges and Section M Long & Short Range Examples". The wide-body passenger entitlement pool was broken into large and medium categories to more fairly apportion peacetime entitlement categories relative to operational capability. This coincides with the information provided during the 18 Aug 09 MOBREP conference breakout sessions with carrier.

#2 - Foreign Operations Question:

Will oversized and non-entitlement based flying (i.e. foreign operated) missions qualify for flying bonus calculation purposes?

Answer: No (these are subcontracted and are not US Flag/CRAF missions)

#3 - F-4. GOVERNMENT CONTROLLABLE DELAYS – DEMURAGE: The transportation of passengers in international long haul operations is every bit as complex, if not more so, than the transportation of goods over those same routes. Where passenger-carrying flights are delayed as a result of a “Government controllable” event, the cost of holding a carrier’s aircraft out of service is significantly higher than that experience by the operator of an all-cargo aircraft.

Check-in errors, failure to adequately perform pre-departure security controls, incorrect or inaccurate passenger manifests and weights furnished by Government under the terms of the contract have all contributed to significant delays in the movement of passenger-carrying aircraft; causing the carrier to experience significant additional crew costs and loss of utilization of its aircraft. When delays occur en route as a result of Government controllable events, such as those events where the Government direct the carrier to delay a flight at an intermediate stop due to the unavailability of Government furnished property and services at the aerial port of debarkation, delays can, and do, reach in excess of 24 hours. Carriers providing passenger transportation experience all of the same costs as those experienced by operators of all-cargo aircraft plus the additional expense of cabin crew, passenger service support staff and the accommodation of the passengers themselves.

Is it reasonable that provision be made for compensation to be made to passenger carriers, as well as to operators of all-cargo aircraft in the case of a Government controllable delay?

Answer: The clause was developed strictly for cargo as passenger missions routinely can experience the delays mentioned above. With a firm fixed price contract, these types of delays are part of the accepted risk. That doesn’t prevent a carrier from identifying a situation which they believe is an excessive delay to the Contracting Officer.

#4 - Reliability: can you provide more specifics regarding actions taken for those carriers that under perform with regard to reliability but operate less than the minimum number of missions required (60 for passenger and 40 for cargo)?

Answer: As we do today, carriers who do not perform the minimum number of missions or even where carriers are above the standard but are experiencing trends or excessive delays, we will require corrective action. During the 9 month FY11 contract we will track the occurrence of poor performance under the 40/60 mission mark. If necessary, we will adjust for FY12.

#5 - ATTACHMENT 1 PWS, Section 2.1 SDS – Reliability: All aircraft arrive within one (1) hour after the scheduled arrival time computed on a rolling three-month average for carriers with 60 or more missions (passenger)/ 40 or more missions (cargo).

Process penalizes operating carriers flying the day-to-day business yet excludes those (major) carriers from the on-time performance calculation since the calculation only applies to carriers with 30 or more departures.

Answer: See Item #4 above

#6 - Attachment 1 Pgs 20-22 2.6.1 SCHEDULE RELIABILITY FOR WHOLE PLANE CHARTER MISSIONS The wording on each of these paragraphs starts with "If a passenger[/cargo] carrier's schedule reliability…". At the meetings it was said that passenger and cargo reliability and penalties/bonuses would be calculated separately. The wording doesn't match this and should be reworked throughout the sections.

Response: We agree; some changes will provide clarity, but not all deemed necessary.

Changes were reflected in amendment 0002.

#7 - USTC doesn’t specify how Stage I, II and III will be filled.

Answer: Section M specifies how the Stages are filled

#8 - Stage I is capped at 30 WBE’s and each contractor is limited to a maximum of 4.5 WBE’s, so lets assume each airline tries to maximize this, each offering 4.5 WBE. But since more than 6 contractors will offer 4.5 WBE’s and the cap is 30 WBE’s, how will they determine which ones get in?

Answer: Proportionally-based stage assignment will be accomplished as it is today. For example, a carrier offering more aircraft to the program would have more aircraft commitment to Stage I than a carrier offering than a couple aircraft. Refer to Section M, page M-8 d. paragraph (d) “Acceptance Criteria” for the priorities and limitations used when accepting aircraft page M-9 para (3) “Assignment of Aircraft” for how aircraft are assigned.

#9 - Stage II is first filled with stage I planes, and the remainder is filled “with aircraft selected from all long-range carriers, in proportion to their total CRAF long-range international commitment and capability.” Page M-9. But since there is a cap on CRAF now, I think most airlines will commit their entire fleet for CRAF, knowing the risk is limited because only 75 WBE’s are allowed in to Stage II and 149 in Stage III.

Answer: See # 8 above.

#10 – The above mentioned will be repeated in Stage III. The result could be that the smaller contractors can only get a small number of planes into Stage II and III in addition to what they get into Stage I. The root problem is that AMC hasn’t decided on or figured out how they will determine what constitutes the “total CRAF long-range international commitment”.

Answer: See #8 above.

#11 - M-5. DETERMINING MOBILIZATION VALUE OF CRAF AIRCRAFT

Pg. M-9 (3) Assignment of Aircraft (i) STAGE I.Solicitation states, choosing Stage I participants is proposed to be done pro rata based on Offers instead of the "bricklaying" method discussed during the EWG. We would like to know why the Stage I processing changed versus the EWG discussions.

Answer: Proportionality was confirmed as the stage assignment process for FY11 during the EWG, and brick-laying method was not approved.

#12 - With the prolonged absence of the "60/40" rule enforcement, the smaller charter airlines are increasingly dependent upon DOD business. When this business base evaporates, these carriers are increasingly vulnerable to bankruptcy options. If they have a disproportional share of the CRAF stage assignments, as would be the case in terms of brick-laying methodology, the health and viability of the entire CRAF program would be at risk. Is this a risk the DOD is willing to take?

Answer: 60/40 rule was suspended and was not an indefinite suspension. Proportional method is being utilized and not the brick-laying method.

#13 -SECTION M, Paragraph M-5 (6) (ii): Carrier will receive an MV bonus of .75% times the number of long-range passenger and cargo missions only performed during the period 1 Jul 09 through 30 Jun 10.

As written in the solicitation, an MV bonus of .75% would actually be a multiplier of 0.0075.

Please confirm that, based on the most recent EW outcome, that the multiplier incentive factor should be 0.75.

Answer: Amendment 0002 reflects the correction.

#14 - Pg. M-11 (6) Flyer Bonus Computation: (i) Designed to reward carriers that perform peacetime business for USTRANSCOM and AMC. (ii) Carrier will receive an MV bonus of .75% times the number of long-range passenger and cargo missions only performed during the period 1 Jul 09 through 30 Jun 10. TCAQ-C will utilize the reliability mission counts. This factor will be added to the carrier’s baseline MV to determine the carrier’s final MV points.Is this calculation final for the year or will it roll quarterly with updated mission counts?

Answer: Concur, is final for the year; does not get incorporated into quarterly entitlement changes. The multiplier was corrected in Amendment 0002.

#15 - The flyer bonus is stated in the cover letter as .75 times the number of missions, while in the actual solicitation the bonus is stated as .75 percent (%) times the number of missions. The difference is obviously huge. The first results in about 33% of points from the flyer bonus and 66% from the base MV points. The second results in about 1% of points from the bonus and 99% from the base MV points, thus no real change. This needs clarification.

Answer: Confirmed; the cover letter is correct and the solicitation has been corrected in Amendment 0002.

#16 - ATTACHMENT 1 PWS, Appendix 3, Paragraph 14.0 regarding updating of insurance:

Our annual insurance policy period does not correspond to the contract period of performance.

The renewal of that policy involves numerous negotiations with underwriters worldwide that can continue until the expiration date to ensure we have attained the best terms available. The proposed requirement of providing certificates of insurance coverage 14 working days prior to expiration of the policy would significantly hinder our ability to negotiate the best rates possible

Answer: Understand it may be impossible to change annual policy periods but the minimum standard is required. This is the minimum time we need in order to accomplish the approvals and coordination with SAF and ensure contract insurance coverage doesn’t lapse. We will change the minimum from 14 days to 7 business days, with the entitlement reduction remaining for late receipts.

#17 - H-17. ALLOCATION AND ORDERING OF EXPANSION AIRLIFT

d. One Way Cargo Rate: Based on commercial backhaul results, a One Way Cargo Rate has been established. Realizing some cargo carriers may not have the same backhaul opportunities, this rate will be applied to the quarterly/semi-annual buys. Carriers will receive preference in one way missions and more of their entitlement on one way missions in the semi-annual/quarterly buy.

We have a concern regarding this one way mandatory reduced rate for the quarterly and semi-annual buys and cancellations under 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price). What recourse does a carrier have in the event of cancellations on these type of missions when the empty back haul has been contracted to a customer and the carrier no longer has the outbound AMC mission.

Answer: Carriers of course have the opportunity to identify issues throughout the performance year, but since the contract is firm fixed price, there is some inherent risk carriers assume.

#18 - Failure to Maintain Control paragraph: Aircraft being pledged to CRAF are identified on Appendix 3A, List of Aircraft. Attachment 1, Section 4.1.1 give examples of failure to maintain and sub paragraph (4) 'removal or aircraft from active utilization...and not flyable for reasons other than maintenance repair or overhaul (MRO)" This implies that if you remove an aircraft for a b-check or c-check the aircraft is still valid and not considered "Failure to Maintain Control". However, the next sentence implies aircraft have to be available within 24 hours.

Can an aircraft be pledged to CRAF and listed on Appendix 3A LIST OF AIRCRAFT, and be out of service due to a normal maintenance B-check, or C-check which would be longer than 24 hours, and not be considered a Failure to Maintain Control?

Answer: Yes

#19 - “Quarter of Change” With regard to the new maintenance three quarter plan/forecast, the RFP says the period is 'covering the quarter of change and the next two future quarters (3 quarters) in total'. Please provide an example.

Answer: Typically we do a 1st quarter entitlement change based on changes we receive after receipt of proposals and negotiations are completed. In the case of the FY11 solicitation, the first opportunity would be related to the 2nd quarter since the start date will be 1 Jan 2010. Therefore, the quarter of change is FY11 2nd qtr and the next two would be Q3&4 respectively.

#20 - Large class category and retiring aircraft:

a) Confirm whether or not the R&R CLINs will be included in the large class category passenger segment, along with the 2x 360-400 ACL CLINs.

Answer:

a) R&R is included in the large class category for fixed

b) Also, if a carrier chose to retire aircraft during the FY11 contract period (+ 6 months) but replaced them with newer aircraft, could they still include those potential retirement aircraft in their FY11 commitment?

Answer:

b) No; the information is contained in the following

Section L:

Page L-5 at the bottom of the page: (d) Offeror must demonstrate by evidence of ownership, lease agreement or lease purchase agreements that the aircraft identified by FAA registration number under Appendix 3A.....are, as of the date of this offer, subject to its control and that the duration of this control is sufficient to cover the term of the commitment.

Page L-6 (e)(3) - the agreement should evidence the commitment of aircraft by tail number for the entire periods stated in subparagraph (2) above.

#21 - MV Data Worksheet

Confirm that the new linear Long Range bonus is being automatically calculated in the new CRAF Aircraft Performance Data Sheets MV calculation.

In addition, are there any other changes that carriers need to be looking for in regards to MV calculation. With the exception of some different/new terminology, the base MV appears to be calculated the same as previous years.

Answer: Using the FY11 most current excel spreadsheet entitled “Data Worksheet” and “Performance Worksheet”, then yes, the range-payload (previously called the 20% long-range bonus) is automatically calculated. As for other changes to the MV system, it is the same as FY10 and the baseline MV is calculated the same. Of course, there is a different weighting corresponding to the Stage the aircraft is assigned and capping of Stage III assignments.

#22 - Lease Conformance Question:

With regard to lease conformance, what is the time line needed to meet the lease conformance requirements? I understand it to be contract period + 6 months, is this right? In the case of FY11 that would be Mar 31, 2012.

Answer: Correct

#23- 1.1.2.3.2 PASSENGER PROCESSING AT SEATTLE - TACOMA IAP: In 2002, the United States Government transferred the regulation of civil aviation security measures from the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration to the competent authority of the Transportation Security Administration. As a result, 14 CFR Part 107 was cancelled and a new series of regulations were laid down at 49 CFR Part 1544, regulating aircraft operate security programs.

Should the third and fourth bullet points be changed to reflect a reference to 49 CFR 1544 and to refer to Transportation Security Administration regulation as well as its policies, messages, memorandums , and directives?

Answer: Reference changed to 49 CFR 1544

#24 - ATTACHMENT 1 – PWS § 1.1.1.3 OXYGEN (O2) CENCENTRATORS ABOARD DOD

OWNED/CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT: The United States Department of Transportation, as the competent national authority, regulates the Non-discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel (14 CFR Part 382), including detailed requirements for the transportation of persons requiring the use of portable oxygen concentrators during flight on board U.S. civil aircraft.

Beyond those requirements for the acceptance of those persons, the United States Federal Aviation Administration, as the competent national authority, at Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106, regulates the specific models of portable oxygen concentrators that may be used during flight, the condition with which both the passenger and the carrier must comply to ensure the safety of flight, as well as the specific content of a physician’s written statement that must be in the passenger’s possession.

As written, § 1.1.1.3. does not appear to conform to the requires of regulation at 14 CFR Part 382, nor 14 CFR SFAR 106.

Does the Government hold an exemption from the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, or both from the requirements laid down at regulation for the transportation of passengers requiring the use of portable oxygen concentrators during flight and does it / do they include civil air carriers while performing service under this contract?

If so, could that / those exemption(s) be incorporated by reference into the contract and copies be provided to the carriers?

If not, could this section be amended to conform to the requirements at regulation?

Answer: FAA ruling is attached (and added to FedBizopps).

#25 - 1.1.2.3 PASSENGER MANIFESTING: The United States Government, and, increasingly, governments all across the globe, require the electronic transmission of certain passenger manifest data, or Advance Passenger Information, before the departure of an international passenger-carrying flight. While there is some relief at regulation in the United States for the transportation of uniformed member of the Armed Forces travelling under orders, that same relief is not provided for civilian contractors, members of coalition forces (except, possibly, NATO forces), nor do most non-U.S. governments provide any relief from the reporting requirements.

Does the Government hold an exemption from the United States Department of Homeland Security, and /or other governments globally, from the regulatory requirements to provide Advanced Passenger Information on flights operated by contract carriers?

If so, could that / those exemption(s) be incorporated by reference into the contract and copies be provided to the carriers?

If not, could this section be amended to conform to the requirements at regulation?

Answer: The government does not hold an exemption to electronic or manual manifest data. GATES is the AMC manifesting system that automatically sends passenger information to APIS within 60 minutes after departure. Active duty military members are exempt. For passengers that are not manifested in GATES or via other Service manifesting systems, a copy of the manifest is sent to Customs Border Protection office within 60 minutes of departure.

#26 - 1.1.2.3.2 PASSENGER PROCESSING AT SEATTLE – TACOMA IAP: In 2002, the United States Government transferred the regulation of civil aviation security measures from the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration to the competent authority of the Transportation Security Administration. As a result, 14 CFR Part 107 was cancelled and a new series of regulations were laid down at 49 CFR Part 1544, regulating aircraft operator security programs.

Does the Government purposefully wish to still incorporate the requirements of the obsolete regulation in this section (14 CFR Part 107), or should the third and fourth bullet points be changed to reflect a reference to 49 CFR 1544 and to refer to Transportation Security Administration regulation as well as its policies, messages, memorandums , and directives? If the Government wishes to continue to incorporate the obsolete regulation, can the carriers be provide a copy of that regulation, as it is no longer readily accessible in the public domain?

Answer: Reference was changed to 49 CFR 1544

#27 - 1.1.2.8.1. LOCATIONS WITH CURRENTLY CALIBRATED SCALES and 1.1.2.8.2.

LOCATIONS WITHOUT CURRENTLY CALIBRATED SCALES: Since the 1985 accident from which the requirements to utilize actual weights when performing flights under contract to the United States Department of Defense, significant technological advances have been made in the application of load cell technologies and other methods of accurately determining the weight of passengers, accessible property and hold baggage. Today, currently calibrated scales can be acquired and maintained at virtually any location globally with minimal cost. Despite the availability of appropriate equipment, carriers have repeated seen discrepancies of several tons in the manifested weights of passengers and their accessible property when reweighed at the aerial port of embarkation utilizing the available currently calibrated scales; indicating that the provisions of § 1.1.2.8.1 have not been universally and systematically applied.

It is critical to the safety of Department of Defense passengers, owing to the unique demographics of the passengers travelling on board contract carrier aircraft and the goods they transport, that actual passenger and accessible property weight be universally and systematically be made available to the carrier for use in performance, as well as weight and balance calculations.

Further, we are deeply concerned that the additive weights laid down at § 1.1.2.8.2 may have been accurate in the Viet Nam era, but do not appear to reflect an contemporary review of the actual weight of equipment and personal items carried by today’s (re)deploying members of the Armed Forces.

Can the Government provide a list of locations at which it knows that currently calibrated scales are not available and a projection of the dates on which it plans to make available the currently calibrated scales necessary to assure the safety of its passengers so that carriers may provide the appropriate level of oversight to the passenger weight statements?

Can the Government provide carriers with the basis for its additive weights for equipment and personal items so that the carrier may be reasonably assured that its regulatory required manuals and procedures for the calculation of weight and balance data and aircraft performance data are accurate within acceptable tolerances to assure the safety of the DoD’s passengers?

Answer: Is covered in the DTR. All AMC locations are required to have calibrated scales.

If a carrier finds issues throughout the year, identify any issues/concerns to Contract Management Branch and/or International Charter Division Operating Location at the time of occurrence so we’re able to identify to the appropriate government entity for action.

#28 - 1.1.3.3 FLIGHT CREW: Within this section, the Government refers to “crewmembers” and “attendants”. Historically the regulations applicable to civil aviation and common usage differentiates between “flight crew”, “cabin crew”, “additional crewmembers”, etc.

Does the Government intend the requirements for uniforms and English language to be applicable only to flight crew (pilots, flight engineers, navigators) and attendants to the flight crew, or, alternatively does it intend this section to be applicable to all crew member, regardless of their position on board the aircraft?

Answer: Any crewmember that is part of the mission

#29 - 1.1.3.5. BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT BARRIER NET: The type certificates and aircraft load restraint systems of several passenger aircraft utilized to support this contract have no provision or requirement for the installation of “barrier type nets” when baggage is loose loaded.

Does the Government intend to require the carrier to modify its passenger aircraft through a Supplemental Type Certificate or Engineering Order to install these device where the aircraft manufacturer has designed the aircraft to transport loose loaded baggage and cargo without the installation of a barrier type net

Answer: Yes; this is a contract requirement and has been for many years. It’s not our intent to dictate how carriers achieve this requirement.

#30 - 1.1.4.3 ENTRÉE CHOICES: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its variants resulted in global restrictions on the importation of beef and beef products in the early years of this decade. Since the 2003 embargo on U.S. beef by 65 nations worldwide, significant improvements have been made in testing and genetic engineering of cattle.

Is the Government intentionally or purposefully continuing its prohibition on the use of beef products from OCONUS caterers?

Answer: This is a Surgeon General requirement; we will reconfirm the requirement.

#31 - 1.1.7 OFFLOADING PASSENGERS SHORT OF MANIFESTED DESTINATION: With increasing frequency, carriers are experiencing in flight medical emergencies related to significant pre-existing, chronic, acute, and occasionally communicable illnesses that render the Government’s passengers unfit to fly on board civil aircraft. These medical emergencies have resulted in denial of boarding at the aerial port of embarkation, removal from flight at an intermediate stop, and removal from flight at airports to which the carrier’s aircraft have had to divert as a result of the medical emergency. The removal a medially unfit passenger short of manifested destination generally results in the voluntary removal of the passenger’s “battle buddy” at the direction of the Government.

Where the Government has been responsible for the check in and acceptance of a medically unfit passenger (as determined by the carriers competent medical advisor) is the carrier responsible for the care and further transportation of the passenger and his / her battle buddy?

Answer: When a situation occurs where there is a question about responsibility, carriers are to make contact with the applicable Contracting Administration Operating Location.

#32 - 1.2.2 PETS et seq.: The transportation of live animals on board civil aircraft engaged in international air commerce is regulated by a series of treaties and regulation designed to ensure the safety of flight as well the control of zoonotic diseases. Within the territory of the United States, the Department of Agriculture, as the competent national authority, regulates the licensing of animal transporters (the carrier) and the transportation of all species of live animals.

Each State over which a carrier is required to operate in support of flights conducted under this contract has designated the competent national authority for the regulation of similar matters.

Neither the United States, nor any State over which carriers operate, recognize the Federal Aviation Administration as the competent authority to regulate the transport of live animals in air commerce. The Department of Transportation holds limited authority to require the transportation of service animals when accompanying a person with a recognized disability, but not the controls relative to importation or exportation of those animals.

At § 1.2.2.2., does the Government intend to specifically limit the carrier to accepting “no more than three in-cabin pets” under all circumstances, or is the intent to make a condition of the contract the acceptance of a minimum of three in-cabin pets with the option to accept more with the mutual agreement of the ACO and carrier?

Answer: Only three in cabin at all times, and service animals would be in addition

#33 - At § 1.2.3, the requirement to transport “animals trained to assist physically impaired passengers according to DOD guidelines” appears to be in violation of DoT requirements at 14 CFR Part 382 which would also require the transport of service animals trained to assist a person with a mental disability. Does the Government hold an exemption to all, or part of 14 CFR Part 382 from the Department of Transportation that covers the carriers, and if so, can it be incorporated into the contract? Does the Department of Defense have guideline for the acceptance and transport of service animals different to those published at regulation and guidance by the Department of Transportation?

Answer: The DOD does not intend on being in conflict with the DoT or FAA regulations;

we’ll confirm and change as appropriate.

#34 - At § 1.2.4, does the Government hold an exemption to regulation from the Department of Agriculture for the transport of animals other than pets? Can the Government provide carriers with a copy of the FAA regulations to which it has access relative to the transportation of animals other than pets, as those regulations are not in the public domain? Department of Transportation reqs cover carriage of animals.

Answer: same as #33

#35 - At 1.2.5, we very much appreciate the effort undertaken to bring the provisions for the transportation of Military Working Dogs into conformity to the regulations of the United States Government and those of the Department of Defense and its various services. The safest, most efficient means of transporting Military Working Dogs is always as properly manifested and kenneled cargo. Can the Government proved the name or office identified of the person, within the context of this section, who is competent to identify a “mission critical requirement” and request that a carrier transport a Military Working Dog by any means other than “as manifested cargo and in the cargo compartment of the aircraft”? Would require approval on a case by case basis.

Answer: MWD are always manifested and moved as cargo and should always be moved in the belly of the aircraft. Only exception would be mission critical, with carrier’s concurrence. The PWS paragraph does specify that it will be approved on a case by case basis.

#36 - At 1.2.6, as the requirements for the design and manufacture of “pet carriers”, to our knowledge, is regulated by competent national authorizes, and the International Air Transport Association, as a trade association, does not hold and has not laid down an approval process for pet carrier that is available to a member or non-member of that association, can the Government provide carriers any document it holds from IATA that specifies what an “approved pet carrier” is?

Answer: Intent is to comply with the IATA Live Animals Regulation

#37 - 3.1.2 TERMINAL AND TRAFFIC SERVICES: The United States Government, and, increasingly, governments all across the globe, require the electronic transmission of certain passenger manifest data, or Advance Passenger Information, before the departure of an international passenger-carrying flight. While there is some relief at regulation in the United States for the transportation of uniformed member of the Armed Forces travelling under orders, that same relief is not provided for civilian contractors, members of coalition forces (except, possibly, NATO forces), nor do most non-U.S. governments provide any relief from the reporting requirements.

Does the Government hold an exemption from the United States Department of Homeland Security, and /or other governments globally, from the regulatory requirements to provide Advanced Passenger Information on flights operated by contract carriers?

If so, could that / those exemption(s) be incorporated by reference into the contract and copies be provided to the carriers?

If not, could this section be amended to conform to the requirements at regulation?

Answer: See #25 above

#38 - 3.4 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS: The provision of clean, dry fuel that meets minimum criteria is critical to the safe operation of any aircraft. Carriers are required, as a condition of their Air Operator Certificate, to ensure that certain services associated to the operation of their aircraft are performed to the standards laid down in their system of manuals. To accomplish this, carriers routinely provide on-site supervision of Government furnished property and services under the terms of this contract and carry out quality assurance oversight of that same property or services. Those oversight activities are designed and required to ensure the safety of the passengers and goods transported onboard the carriers’ aircraft in support of the contract.

In order to facilitate continuing compliance with regulatory and voluntary quality standards (such as IATA Operational Safety Audit registration), it would appear that carriers and Government alike would benefit from provision at contract from the addition of language to the effect of:

The Government will undertake reasonable efforts to facilitate and cooperate with carriers’ oversight efforts to ensure that Government furnished property and services described at Section 3 of the Performance Work Statement conform to regulatory and industry standards appropriate to those properties and services. The Government will also undertake reasonable efforts to timely correct deficiencies in Government furnished property and services relative to quality and safety noted and reported to the Government during the carriers’ oversight activities.

In those cases where the carrier establishes by objective evidence that Government furnished property or services do not meet regulatory or other accepted standards and cannot be timely remedied, the carrier may, on a reimbursable basis, provide or arrange for such property or service.

Answer: Carriers should identify specifics to the government where these situations exist prior to or during contract performance.

#39- 3.5 CONCURRENT SERVICING: Left to the discretion of individual Wing / Base Commanders, the decision not to support concurrent servicing at many location across the globe has lead to significant Government controllable delay of passenger aircraft and has resulted in uncompensated demurrage, particularly in those cases where the Government controllable delay results in rescheduling flight operations around multiple airports’ “quiet hours”.

Concurrent servicing is a commercially acceptable practice safely accomplished by every carrier around the globe.

Can the Government provide written assurance that it will undertake every reasonable effort to ensure that every Wing / Base Commander will support concurrent service in order to reduce the increased risk to the safety of operations carriers experience when crew duty days are extended and operating hour waivers are requested as a result of Government controllable delay associated to the delivery of petroleum products?

Answer: AMC and USTRANSCOM are taking the necessary steps to ensure concurrent servicing is accomplished, where possible.

#40 - 4.2.7.11. OTHER THAN ACTIVATION MISSIONS: The United States Transportation Security Administration’s Standard Security Programs for “charter operations in commercial service” prohibit the transportation of firearms and other prohibited item in the passenger cabin of an aircraft and require passenger who disembark at an intermediate (technical) stop to remove all of their accessible property from the cabin.

Despite the fact that the TSA has repeatedly issued legal interpretations and regulatory relief, is it the Government’s desire that the TSA’s Standard Security Programs be applied at technical stops where there is no AMC or military presence, including the removal of all accessible personal property from the cabin and the stowage of all firearms and components in the inaccessible cargo hold?

Answer: It is the government’s intent that the contractor satisfy the requirements of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security program for charter operations in commercial service.

#41 - 4.2.7.1.3 “NO SHOW” PASSENGERS: Several treaties, conventions, and regulations of the States over which carriers conduct operations under this contract contain requirements for positive passenger baggage reconciliation prior to aircraft departure to prevent the introduction of an explosive or incendiary device on board an aircraft engaged in air commerce.

Does the Government hold an exemption to the regulatory requirements for baggage reconciliation from the European Commission, the Governments of Kuwait, the Kyrgyz Republic, Japan, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, inter alia, that permits the transport of unaccompanied passenger baggage provided “ that baggage has received customs pre-clearance” that also cover the carriers? If so, can it provide carrier with those exemptions?

Answer: AMCI 24-101, Vol 14, requires positive bag match. All bags are screened. The aircraft commander has the final say as to whether he wants the bags downloaded or he can leave them aboard.

#42- 4.2.8.1 RECEIPT OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL: Can the Government provide a copy of the reference paragraph 4.2.3.2 which does not appear to have been published in this version of the PWS, or, alternative is the reference supposed to be to paragraph 4.2.8.2?

Answer: Changed to 4.2.8.2 in an Amendment.

#43 - 4.3.1 PASSPORTS: Does the Government intend to require that company personnel at a domestic location such as Fort Campbell, who will not be travelling on board the aircraft operating an overseas mission under this contract , such as a mechanic, have a current and valid passport? Alternatively, does the Government mean that “All company personnel supporting AMC overseas missions by travelling on board an aircraft or assigned duty outside their State of nationality shall have a current and valid passport”?

Answer: The language specifically states “All company personnel supporting AMC overseas missions shall have a current and valid passport”.

#44 - 4.4.11 PASSENGER MISSION ARRIVALS AT U.S. COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS: The United States Government, at 19 CFR Part 122, places the responsibility to notify all interested Government agencies with the person approving the aircraft operator’s landing rights, i.e. the Port Director. See 19 CFR 122.14 and 122.31(f).

Is it the Government’s intent to authorize and require the carrier to deviate from the specific prohibit at PWS 4.2.4 relative to the distribution of critical information to those without a need to know? Alternatively, would the interests of Operations Security be better served if Tanker Airlift Command released authorized information to those it believes has a need to know and permit the carrier to rely on long established commercial practice in accordance with the regulations applicable to notice to Government agencies?

Answer: No; it’s not the government’s intent to deviate, therefore the carriers would need to adhere to all language as applicable.

#45 - Section L, para 9, item (8) Included with List of Aircraft (Appendix 3a):

a. Daily maintenance snapshot showing the current status of the entire fleet (dated within 7 days of submission); and

b. Rolling 3-quarter maintenance plan/forecast covering the quarter of change and the next two future quarters (3 quarters total).

We have varying interpretations and hope you might simplify this requirement.

Answer: Carriers need to provide an internal airline document, which will provide the requested information. We’ll let carriers know if additional data is needed once supplied.

#46 - MX report date

So if the Team packet is shipped on Thursday 7/29 arriving USTC on Friday 7/30, the MX reports need to have been generated NET Thursday 7/22 (7/29 minus 7 days = 7/22)?

Answer: Confirmed

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Part III

Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11 and 121 Use of Certain Portable Oxygen Concentrator Devices Onboard Aircraft;

Final Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:38 Jul 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12JYR2.SGM 12JYR2

40156 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11 and 121

[Docket No.: FAA–2004–18596; SFAR No.

106]

RIN 2120–AI30

Use of Certain Portable Oxygen Concentrator Devices Onboard Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) will permit passengers to use certain portable oxygen concentrator (POC) devices on aircraft, provided certain conditions in this SFAR are satisfied. The SFAR includes a POC preparation requirement for carry-on baggage transport, and a battery-packaging standard necessary for the safe carriage of extra POC batteries in carry-on baggage. This rulemaking action is necessary to address the travelling needs of people on oxygen therapy.

DATES: This SFAR becomes effective August 11, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Catey, Air Transportation Division, AFS–200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–3732.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1) Searching the Department of Transportation’s electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);

(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/ arm/index.cfm; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office’s web page at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/ aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm.

Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA is authorized to issue this pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44701. Under that section, the FAA is authorized to establish regulations and minimum standards for ‘‘other practices methods and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for air commerce and national security.’’

Background This final rule responds to comments received on notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘Use of Portable Oxygen Concentrator Devices Onboard Aircraft,’’ (69 FR 42324; July 14, 2004). The NPRM proposed a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) to allow passengers to operate certain portable oxygen concentrator (POC) devices on aircraft if certain conditions detailed in the proposal were met.

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA recognizes that there is a critical need to improve service for passengers who have a medical need to travel with medical oxygen. Passengers requiring medical oxygen during air travel have faced significant difficulties obtaining adequate air service. Many carriers do not provide medical oxygen during air travel. Those carriers that provide the service often charge for the service— sometimes at a cost that equals the price of a ticket. Additionally, it can be difficult to coordinate service between the carrier and a supplier of medical oxygen to ensure passenger coverage both at the terminal and on the aircraft.

Sometimes, the passenger must spend at least part of the time travelling without medical oxygen due to service problems with the oxygen provider.

Compressed oxygen is regulated as a Hazardous Material by the Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), formerly the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), under title 49 CFR 172.101. The FAA also regulates oxygen furnished by aircraft operators to passengers who have a medical need for oxygen on board the aircraft. Oxygen is highly regulated because, as an oxidizer, it can enhance an existing fire, and it can support combustion of certain flammable materials, whether or not an ignition source is present. The FAA’s medical oxygen regulations, 14 CFR 121.574, 125.219, and 135.91, currently allow aircraft operators to furnish equipment for the storage, generation, or dispensing of oxygen to passengers provided all of the following conditions are met:

The equipment is:

1. Furnished by the certificate holder;

2. Of an approved type or is in conformity with the manufacturing, packaging, marking, labelling and maintenance requirements of 49 CFR parts 171, 172 and 173 except 173.24(a)(1);

3. Maintained by the aircraft operator in accordance with an approved maintenance program;

4. Free of flammable contaminants on all exterior surfaces;

5. Capable of providing a minimum mass flow of oxygen to the user of four liters per minute (this provision is not contained in either part 125 or 135 regulations);

6. Constructed so that all valves, fittings and gauges are protected from damage; and

7. Appropriately secured.

Recently new medical oxygen technologies have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration that reduce the risks typically associated with compressed oxygen. Two companies—AirSep Corporation and Inogen, Inc.—have developed small POCs that work by filtering out nitrogen from the air and providing the user with oxygen at a concentration of about 90%.

The POCs operate using either rechargeable batteries or, if approved by the FAA, aircraft electrical power.

In addition, PHMSA, formerly RSPA, has determined that the POCs are not hazardous materials. Thus they do not require the same level of special handling as compressed oxygen, and are safe for use onboard aircraft provided certain conditions for their use are met.

Summary

This SFAR establishes requirements applicable to passenger-supplied POCs used on aircraft. With the adoption of this rule, passengers will be able to choose between two different kinds of

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:38 Jul 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JYR2.SGM 12JYR2 http://dms.dot.gov/search http://dms.dot.gov http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html

40157Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations portable oxygen concentrator (POC) devices to operate onboard an aircraft during travel. The NPRM published in July 2004 explained the proposal and this final rule adopts much of that original proposal, with some modifications, including:

1. Some proposed requirements that would have been placed on air carriers are now the responsibility of the POC user;

2. The Inogen One POC, mentioned only as being studied in the NPRM, is included as an eligible portable electronic device in the SFAR in response to comments;

3. We will allow passengers using a POC to walk around the cabin while carrying the device. However, when a passenger has a medical need to use a POC during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing, the person using the POC must be seated in seat location so as not to restrict other passenger’s access to, or use of, any required emergency, or regular exit. Additionally, the POC user must be seated in a location so as not to restrict access to the aisle(s) of the passenger compartment. Passengers who do not have a medical need to use a POC during movement on the surface, takeoff and landing, and are not seated in accordance with the preceding requirements, must properly stow the POC so it does not block access to the aisleway (e.g., under the passenger seat in front of the user). In either case, POCs and the extra batteries needed to power them must be properly stowed in accordance with the applicable carry-on baggage requirements of 14 CFR 91.523, 91.525, 121.285, 121.589, 125.183, and 135.87.

4. Several extra batteries may be required to power the POCs for some flights and we are including a battery-packaging standard for POC batteries included in carry-on baggage. (Section 3(b)(6) of the SFAR)

We don’t feel that any of these modifications go outside the scope of the original NPRM since we specifically cited the Inogen One POC and sought comment on who should be responsible for certain aspects of the rule. All comments are addressed below.

The SFAR is an enabling rule, which means that no aircraft operator is required to allow passengers to operate these devices onboard, but they may allow them to be operated onboard. If an aircraft operator chooses to allow a passenger to operate these devices onboard the aircraft operator’s aircraft the conditions in the SFAR must be met.

Presently, there are only two acceptable POCs on the market (Inogen and Airsep) and we cannot predict how future products may be developed and work. Accordingly, while we are committed to developing a performance-based standard for all future POC devices, we do not want to prematurely develop standards that have the effect of stifling new technology of which we are unaware. It is only under exceptionally rare circumstances that the FAA would permit a specific product to be used in a regulation. However, we believe such an approach is appropriate in this case until such time that a performance-based standard can be developed because the rule accommodates individuals who would otherwise be unable to fly. This approach is consistent with the Department of Transportation’s desire to reduce travel barriers to persons with disabilities.

Reference Material

After reviewing the, ‘‘United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority study titled ‘‘Dealing With In-Flight Lithium Battery Fires in Portable Electronic Devices’’, and recent incident data detailing battery abuse and short circuit problems associated with the carriage of batteries, it became clear that we must provide a means for reducing the hazard of personal injury and fire from loose POC batteries included as carry on items in passengers’ carry-on baggage.